held

A. First of all, the things are illuminating and enlightening, but the very statement that because the court has no reason to rule, therefore the law of property will be determined in the current situation, in my opinion is very strange why the law of the court would affect the property ownership, beyond that, you later wrote that where the holder knows that he is right in his possession, he can use the object, and I asked why not explain the law of the tax in this way, that is, that my mere knowledge of my right (or even knowledge of the doubt in my favor) gives me the right to possess, and to exercise the right, and in this the spender is similar to the one who is in pain and is obliged to go to the doctor and treat himself and there is no requirement for the healthy person to help him, that is, the situation of the holder and the spender is similar to the situation of the sick and the healthy person.
B. You didn't explain there the assumption that what a person will live with is his, which is certainly an assumption in reality that there is no use in attacking him at all, even according to the Rambam, and it is explained in several places, and therefore it must be that he is right, and that there is some assumption that the holder is right (I have no idea why I assume that, I'm with you on this) and therefore attacking him is useless.
Thank you, and yes,

The law of the B”D does not affect ownership but rather the B”D's steps. If he has no reason to intervene, he does not intervene.
I did not understand the second question. Even if he has the right to use, the B”D does not have to take this into account. It is also not necessary that the holder is indeed speaking the truth and knows what he is saying. There is a possibility that he is lying.
I explained why this assumption is not a correct factual assumption. So what is the question? There is an interest in determining such an assumption halachically and therefore it has the status of an assumption.

A. If it does not affect ownership, what good will the consecration of a woman do with this property? A. We have emptied the law of the rabbinate of its content, and it is merely a technical instruction for the rabbinate.
B. I would say that the very fact that the rabbinate knows that it is his will itself cause them to rule that the holder has a complete right to hold by virtue of his knowledge (the rabbinate has no right to assume that one is lying and the simple assumption is that one is mistaken)
C. “There is an interest in establishing such a halakhic assumption.” In other words, let’s assume assumptions in reality so that we can have fun, right?

A. I didn't understand the question. If that person thinks that the money is his, he takes it and consecrates a woman with it, and she is indeed consecrated. But not because God allowed him to do so, but because the money is truly his.
C. It's not for fun, but because there are legal reasons to assume so.